The idea seemed ridiculous at first. Making a remake of a classic horror Psycho (1960), a film now regarded as one of the highlights of its author, Alfred Hitchcock. A perfect work, as one speaks of a perfect crime, in which each element has its place: music, acting, directing, editing. Hitchcock had fulfilled its goal was to make a good film with a small budget and would mark deeply the public.
So why remake Psycho * in 1998?
This crazy idea has germinated in the mind of Gus Van Sant, a great admirer of the film. His goal was to make it known to a younger generation of viewers, allergic to black and white, and for whom the name of Hitchcock said nothing at all. In part a tribute to filmmaker overweight, partly stylistic exercise, the purpose of this remake was not to supplant the original but just update it. Cutting, music, dialogues were held. Sumptuous black and white John L. Russell, one passes to the color of Christopher Doyle. Vince Vaughn replaces Anthony Perkins in the role of Norman Bates, Anne Heche plays Marion Crane Julianne Moore and her sister Lila.
Object curiosity, Psycho new is made to be shown in a museum next to the original. We then devote himself with delight at the performance of the comparison, noting the discrepancies, the differences. Van Sant enjoys pushing himself to the fidelity to the original by incorporating the false connections and other errors in the 1960 film. It also adds a dialogue too daring for its time, but can incorporate brand "Copyright". And that's where we can afford to doubt his choice include an example the opening scene, when Marion and her lover Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen) discuss in their hotel room, while the refers to the antics of a couple in the adjacent room. This adds nothing to the story. Worse, when Norman Bates Marion Crane spy through the hole in his office, he masturbated, which was not the case in the original. Explicit what was only suggested, that the well through our time.
Other choices posed question in the famous shower scene, Van Sant music starts later, and add shots of clouds (The leitmotif of the filmmaker). In the scene of the murder of private detective Arbogast, he adds a few shots short unrelated to the scene. A way like another to seize the material and to legitimize the exercise, in this case quite sterile at creative?
Maybe.
It is clear that the comparison is not favorable to the remake. The actors' performance is well below the original. This is especially true of Vince Vaughn, whose playing support does not leave much doubt about the sanity of her character. The use of color brings an overflow of information and Apart from some technical improvements, additions to this new version are irrelevant.
So bad idea from the start? Quite possible. Why not be reissued by the original restoration worthy of the name, as was the case for Vertigo? If Psycho of 1998 has not drained the crowds (unlike his predecessor), mostly because today's teens are rather fond of films much more gore in the Saw kind and Other Hostel. And the slow pace, typical of a film of the 60s, could only disappoint them. Without
mention the fact that seeing the remake can only ruin the element of surprise for those who want to discover the original.
is obviously the Hitchcock movie that will be remembered, and that ersatz join the cabinet of curiosities, with other freaks of a feather ...
Excerpts:
The original shower scene
The same scene in the remake
* Proposed August 2, 2009 at the French Cinematheque in Paris.
